agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0147.html
JB: lots of stds harmonization sessions
JB: session on stds harmonization, lots of interest
JB: wendy gave a session about transition WCAG 1.0 -> 2.0, fair amount of interest too
JB: matt gave a session about visual verification but little attendance, maybe we should explain more what the topic is about
JB: marja presented on a paper on accessibility of web collaboration
JB: many sessions related to web
SAZ: many tools and AT demos, more than last year
JB: how many people on the call have had time to read through the entire suite from top to tail?
LC, AA, HS read through it
JB: i really recommend that everyone do that
JB: strongly recommend everyone try to go through entire suite in one sitting soon
JB: it's long but it makes a difference if you read through the whole thing at one time
JB: it's important to get any edits in the next few days and sign it off
SLH: questions and directions at the beginning of each page but really important to look at it
JB: any general comments?
BM: that really works for me
BM: i had trouble getting overview on the document
BM: this helps me get focus and find consistency throughout the document
BM: for me it's help
JB: do people like that question format?
DS: i like it for roughly the same reason as blossom was saying
JB: shawn, you were looking for help with the right wordings
JB: i've sent some comments offline
JB: summary, maybe identify might be helpful
HB: i second that
SP: i think the questions are alright but there are some explanatory text in some documents
SP: is that necessary?
JB: you mean take out the explanatory text?
SP: yes, there seems to be a redundancy
SLH: sometimes there are redundancies but sometimes it is not repetitive
JB: would it be possible to take this unique comments into the questions or the text?
SLH: sometimes it might be helpful to have
JB: i had the opposite feeling then sailesh, actually the text helped me to get focus before i plunge into the information heavy of the document
HB: it is not clear to me sometimes that the text corresponds to the title
CL: i'm leaning to sailesh's comments
LC: would it be difficult to use the document if the questions were links and people would jump back and forth?
SLH: in some cases it might not be good to remove the text, for example on social factors
JB: what about trying to condense the text as much as possible? it might keep the readers from slowing down but it would ensure that they get the most possible out of the document
SP: sometimes the questions seem rhetorical
SLH: at the TP we had questions like "do you care about people" and we worked on making them less rhetorical
JB: actually i don't find questions like "do you care about reducing server low" such a rhetorical question, it really depends on the environment of the organization
JB: if one considers the broad spectrum of organization sizes and models
SP: on the financial factors maybe we should rephrase the questions to reflect the content more
JB: what do others think?
DS: i like the document the way it is, another pass with consistency might be ok
AA: i'm reasonably comfortable with it, i'd spend the time cleaning up other parts
CHANGELOG request to check the consistency but keeping the time and effort limited
BM: propose "questions to consider"
SLH: "questions to consider" might be not specific enough, better are questions to help focus
JB: changelog attempt renaming the relevant headers
SLH: on the legal and policy factors, i'm not comfortable with the duplication
SLH: we didn't get enough time to discuss this, how about we go through the questions sent per e-mail on monday?
SLH: section "considerations for different types of organizations" is too repetitive
JB: the length of the suite is considerable, some redundancy might actually be good
SLH: i'm not comfortable with some of the separation of the content, we don't really have more to say then to point them to the policies page
HB: maybe along the lines of viewing the global market
SLH: we have that as the last bullet, section "addressing multiple standards or guidelines"
JB: tone seems different then the rest of the suite, it seems to reflect an opinion
SLH: judy, do you have an idea for a rewrite?
JB: do we have agreement on such a change?
DA, AA, BM, SLH agree
CHANGELOG add Stds Harm discussion to "developing a policy" suite
CHANGELOG slh to redraft "addressing multiple Stds" in legal and to remove 'opinions' - use jb's notes
JB: any suggestions for a title for the resource?
HS: maybe "identifying the case for web accessibility"?
JB: the question is, do we need to rename it from "Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization" to something else?
AA: after the TP discussion, this seemed to be the best solution, i support it
HB, CL support it too
HS: we left out "business" because of financial catch and now we have "business" again
HS: i can live with it, but is it ok?
JB: we had a discussion at the TP and we came to the conclusion that "business case" was more generic than we initially assumed and "case" alone might also be confusing
HB: leaving out "business" might broaden the audience considering the non-business organizations
SLH: we came to the conclusion that even non business organizations understand these business terms
JB: henk, harvey and sailesh prefer removing the term business, where do the others stand?
LC: i didn't like it at first, now i do
BM: i'm for leaving it out, it shortens the title a little
CL: i can live with both
SLH: i'm ok with "business case" or some alternative but not "web accessibility case", it doesn't make sense for me
DS: i agree with shawn
JB: no consensus on this, i'll send a mail to the group and try to find thoughts on this
JB: meanwhile try to "google" the words or look them up
SP: 'developing the (business) case for web accessibility in your organization'
JB: this has been rejected several times before, at least without the 'business' word in the middle
JB: discussion of CSR in Social Factors
JB: do we want to rephrase some questions as described (check changelog)?
LC, SP agree
CHANGELOG editors discretion to examine discussion of CSR in Social (refer JB's offline notes)
JB: any comments on navigation and the links?
CHANGELOG remove "related resources" section now we have a References page - see how it looks
SLH: there are a few outstanding issues on the overview
JB: found reading the total document a pleasurable experience and appreciated the amount of information
SLH: unlike some other documents, this resource might not be read from top to bottom but rather be picked
SLH: i think it can be longer than others for that reason
JB: please read and comment on the list
Friday, 2 April 2004